THE GEOLOGICAL RECORD OF METEORITE IMPACTS

Gordon R. Osinski

Canadian Space Agency, 6767 Route de l'Aeroport, St-Hubert, QC J3Y 8Y9 Canada,
Email: gordon.osinski@space.gc.ca

ABSTRACT 2. FORMATION OF METEORITE IMPACT

STRUCTURES
Meteorite impact structures are found on all
planetary bodies in the Solar System with a solid The formation of hypervelocity impact craters has
surface. On the Moon, Mercury, and much of Mars, been divided, somewhat arbitrarily, into three main
impact craters are the dominant landform. On Earth, stages [3] (Fig. 2): (1) contact and compression, (2)
174 impact sites have been recognized, with several excavation, and (3) modification. A further stage of
more new craters being discovered each year. The “hydrothermal and chemical alteration” is also
terrestrial impact cratering record is critical for our considered as a separate, final stage in the cratering
understanding of impacts as it currently provides the process (e.g., [4]), and is also described below.
only ground-truth data on which to base
interpretations of the cratering record of other planets
and moons. In this contribution, I summarize the
processes and products of impact cratering and
provide and an up-to-date assessment of the
geological record of meteorite impacts.

1. INTRODUCTION

It is now widely recognized that impact cratering is a

ubiquitous geological process that affects all
planetary objects with a solid surface (e.g., [1]). One
only has to look up on a clear night to see that impact
structures are the dominant landform on the Moon.
The same can be said of all the rocky and icy bodies
in the solar system that have retained portions of
their earliest crust. On Earth, however, erosion,
volcanic resurfacing, and tectonic activity are
continually erasing impact craters from the rock
record. Despite this, 174 confirmed impact structures
have been documented to date with several more
‘new’ sites being recognized each year (Fig. 1) [2].

Fig. 2. Series of schematic cross sections depicting

the formation of a terrestrial complex impact
structure (i.e., diameter >2–4 km). From [5].
Fig. 1. Location of the 174 recognized terrestrial
impact structures superimposed on a digital elevation
map of the Earth. Location of structures from the
Earth Impact Database [2] (see Appendix 1).
2.1. Contact and compression

The first stage of an impact event begins when the

projectile, either an asteroid or comet, contacts the
surface of the target (Fig. 2). The projectile
penetrates no more than 1–2 times its diameter [4],
before transferring its kinetic energy into the target in
the form of shock waves that are created at the
boundary between the compressed and uncompressed
target material [6]. These shock waves subsequently
Fig. 4. Crater-fill impactites at the Haughton impact
propagate both into the target sequence and back into
structure, Canada, interpreted as carbonate-rich
the projectile itself. When the reflected shock wave
impact melt breccias [12].
reaches the ‘free’ upper surface of the projectile, it is
reflected back into the projectile as a rarefaction, or
The point at which the projectile is completely
tensional wave [7]. The passage of this rarefaction
unloaded is generally taken as the end of the contact
wave through the projectile causes it to unload from
and compression stage [6]. The duration of this initial
high shock pressures, resulting in the complete
stage depends on the projectile’s size, composition,
melting and/or vaporization of the projectile itself [3,
and impact velocity; however, it lasts no more than a
6]. The increase in internal energy accompanying
few seconds for all but the largest basin-forming
compression and subsequent rarefaction results in the
impacts [6].
virtually instantaneous melting and/or vaporization
of a volume of target material close to the point of
2.2. Excavation stage
impact, producing characteristic impact melt rocks
and glass-bearing breccias that form the crater-fill
The transition from the initial contact and
impactites in many terrestrial impact craters [7, 8].
compression stage, into the excavation stage is a
For impact craters formed in crystalline targets,
continuum. It is during this stage that the actual
these crater-fill impact melt rocks display
impact crater is opened up by complex interactions
characteristic igneous textures and features (e.g.,
between the expanding shock wave and the original
columnar jointing; Fig. 3). In contract, the crater-fill
ground surface [6]. During the excavation stage, the
impactites in craters developed in sedimentary or
roughly hemispherical shock wave propagates out
mixed crystalline–sedimentary targets, do not display
into the target sequence (Fig. 2). This causes target
such obvious characteristics (e.g., Fig. 4), which has
material to be set in motion, with an outward radial
led to many uncertainties regarding the importance of
trajectory. At the same time, shock waves that
impact melting in volatile-rich sedimentary target
initially travelled upwards intersect the ground
rocks [5]. However, recent work has shown that
surface and generate rarefaction waves that
impact melting is an important process during
propagate back downwards into the target sequence
impacts into sedimentary targets [9-12] (Fig. 4).
[6]. The combination of the outward-directed shock
waves and the downward-directed rarefaction waves
produces an ‘excavation flow’ and generates a so-
called ‘transient cavity’ (Figs. 2, 3) [13, 14]. The
different trajectories of material in different regions
of the excavation flow field result in the partitioning
of the transient cavity into an upper ‘excavated zone’
and a lower ‘displaced zone’ (Fig. 5). Material in the
excavated zone is ejected beyond the transient cavity
rim, while material in the displaced zone remains
within the transient cavity [15]. It is notable that the
excavation flow lines transect the hemispherical
pressure contours, so that ejecta will contain material
from a range of different shock levels, including
shock-melted target lithologies.
Fig. 3. Impact melt rocks at the ~28 km diameter, A portion of the melt and rock debris that
~36 Ma Mistastin impact structure, Canada. Notice originates beneath the point of impact remains in the
the well-developed columnar jointing on the ~80 m transient cavity [8]. This material forms the crater-fill
high cliff face. Photo courtesy of D. Wilton. impactites in terrestrial impact craters (Figs. 3, 4).
Eventually, a point is reached at which the shock and
rarefaction waves can no longer excavate or displace
target rock and melt [16]. At the end of the
excavation stage, a mixture of melt and rock debris
forms a lining to the transient cavity. Calculations
suggest that the excavation stage for a 200 km
diameter crater requires ~90 s [6].
target material. Interaction of these hot rocks with
groundwaters and surface water can lead to the
development of an impact-generated hydrothermal
system [21]. Recent studies suggest that impact-
induced hydrothermal activity will occur following
the majority of impact events, with some exceptions
for small craters or those formed in arid
environments [22, 23]. The circulation of
hydrothermal fluids through impact craters can lead
to substantial alteration and mineralization of
impactites and target rocks. Thus, the recognition of
impact-associated hydrothermal deposits is important
in understanding the evolution of impact craters
through time.

Fig. 5. Theoretical cross section through a transient

cavity showing the locations of impact
metamorphosed target lithologies. Excavation flow
lines (dashed lines) open up the crater and result in
excavation of material from the upper one-third to
one-half the depth of the transient cavity. Modified
after Grieve [17] and Melosh [6].

2.3. Modification stage

The effects of the modification stage are governed by

the size of the transient cavity and the properties of
the target rock lithologies [18]. For crater diameters
<2–4 km on Earth, the transient cavity undergoes
only minor modification resulting in the formation of
a simple bowl-shaped crater (Figs. 6a, 7). However,
above a certain size threshold (generally quoted as
>2–4 km diameter on Earth, but see discussion in
section 3), the transient cavity is unstable and
undergoes modification by gravitational forces,
producing a so-called complex impact crater (Figs. 2,
6b,c, 8) [19]. Uplift of the transient crater floor
occurs leading to the development of a central uplift
(Figs. 2, 6b). Subsequently, the initially steep walls
of the transient crater collapse under gravitational
forces (Fig. 2). Numerical models suggest that the
maximum depth of the transient cavity is attained
before the maximum diameter is reached (e.g., [20]).
Thus, uplift of the crater floor may commence before Fig. 6. Series of schematic cross sections through a
simple (a) and complex (b, c) impact structure. This
the maximum diameter has been reached. As French
[16] notes, the modification stage has no clearly figure also illustrates the various diameters and
marked end. Processes that are intimately related to depths associated with hypervelocity impact craters
complex crater formation, such as the uplift of the (see Turtle et al. [24] for a detailed review and
crater floor and collapse of the walls, merge into discussion of the different connotations associated
with "crater diameter"). It is important to note that
normal geological processes such as mass movement,
erosion, etc. for the majority of terrestrial impact structures,
which are eroded, the apparent crater diameter (DA)
will be the only value obtainable. This is not the
2.4. Post-impact hydrothermal activity
same metric quoted in numerical modeling studies,
Impact events generate pressures and temperatures where the final crater (rim-to-rim) diameter (D) is
typically used. Modified after Turtle et al. [24].
that can melt and/or heat substantial volumes of

3. MORPHOLOGY OF IMPACT CRATERS
Impact craters are subdivided into two main groups
based on morphology: simple and complex. Simple
craters comprise a bowl-shaped depression that is
similar in shape to the initial transient cavity (Figs.
6a, 7). Complex impact structures generally have a
structurally complicated rim, a down-faulted annular
trough, and an uplifted central area (Fig. 6b). These
features form as a result of gravitational adjustments
of the initial crater during the modification stage of
impact crater formation (see section 2.3).
Fig. 7. Oblique aerial view of the 1.2 km diameter
Meteor Crater, Arizona. Photo courtesy of T. Bunch.
Fig. 8. View from the Space Shuttle of the ~100 km
diameter Manicouagan impact structure, Canada.
Image courtesy of Earth Sciences and Image
Analysis Laboratory, NASA Johnson Space Center.
ISS012 Roll: E Frame: 15880.
It is widely cited that the transition from simple to
complex craters on Earth occurs at a smaller
diameter in sedimentary (2 km) as opposed to
crystalline targets (4 km). This dates back to the
work of Dence [25] who based this observation on a
compilation of the 50 known impact structures at that
time. Figure 9 shows that this inference may require
updating, given the current impact cratering record.
In particular, it is apparent that the simple-to-
complex transition for craters developed in
crystalline and mixed sedimentary-crystalline targets
occurs over a range of diameters (~3–4 km). For
sedimentary targets, the average transition diameter
does appear to be at a slightly lower value of ~3 km,
but the difference between craters developed in
different target rocks is not as pronounced as
previously noted. In addition, there is also the
notable exception of the ~5 km diameter Goat
Paddock impact structure, Australia, which appears
to be a simple crater but with features transitional to
the complex morphology [26]. It should be noted that
Figure 8 was compiled using those craters where the
diameter was deemed reliable by the author.
However, this relies on the accurateness of the
literature. In addition, there are also complications
due to differing erosion levels and differences in
opinion as to what crater diameter actually means
(e.g., apparent versus final crater diameter; Fig. 6),
which is often not clear in the literature (see Turtle
[24] for a review).
Fig. 9. Classification of all known impact structures
1–6 km in diameter with reliable metrics.
4. IMPACT CRATERING v. ENDOGENOUS
GEOLOGICAL PROCESSES
Meteorite impact events differ in several ways from
more familiar endogenous geological processes such
as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. In the past,
there has been much confusion and controversy
surrounding impacts, in part, due to their rarity, even
over geological timescales. Unlike large earthquakes,
volcanic explosions, or tsunamis, there have been no
historical examples of crater-forming impact events
[16]. Major differences between impact events and
other geological processes include: (1) the extreme
physical conditions (Fig. 10); (2) the concentrated
nature of the energy release at a single point on the
Earth’s surface; (3) the virtually instantaneous nature
of the impact process; and (4) the high strain rates
involved (~104 s–1 to 106 s–1 for impacts versus
10–3 s–1 to 10–6 s–1 for endogenous tectonic and
metamorphic processes) [16]. Impact events are,
therefore, unlike any other geological process.
A prime example is the controversy surrounding
the Silverpit structure in the North Sea. Stewart and
Allen [27] originally proposed that this structure was
an impact crater based on high-resolution 3D seismic
data and despite some opposition (e.g., [28]), most
impact workers accept this; however, without drilling
to retrieve samples, this structure is currently
relegated to the list of "possible" impact structures.
This is unfortunate as the seismic dataset for this
structure surpasses that available for any known
impact structure and may provide important insights
into complex crater formation [27]. In order to try
and address this issue, Stewart [29] proposed a
framework for the identification of impact structures
based on 3D seismic data, but this has received little
attention to date within the impact community.

Fig. 10. Pressure–temperature (P–T) plot showing

comparative conditions for shock metamorphism and
‘normal’ crustal metamorphism. The approximate P–
T conditions needed to produce specific shock effects
are indicated by vertical dashed lines below the
Fig. 11. Shatter cones developed in fine-grained
exponential curve that encompasses the field of
limestones of the central uplift of the Haughton
shock metamorphism. Modified from French [16].
impact structure, Canada. The height of the image is
18 cm.
5. THE RECOGNITION OF METEORITE
IMPACT STRUCTURES

Several criteria may be used to identify hypervelocity

impact structures, including the presence of a crater
form and/or unusual rocks, such as breccias, melt
rocks, and pseudotachylyte; however, on their own,
these indicators do not provide definitive evidence
for a meteorite impact structure. The general
consensus within the impact community is that
unequivocal evidence for hypervelocity impact takes
the form of shock metamorphic indicators, either
megascopic (e.g., shatter cones Fig. 11) or
microscopic (e.g., planar deformation features, Fig.
12; diaplectic glass, Fig. 13), and the presence of
high-pressure polymorphs (e.g., coesite, stishovite).
Unfortunately, this requires investigation and
preservation of suitable rocks within a suspected Fig. 12. Quartz grain displaying planar deformation
structure. However, this is often not possible for features from the crater-fill impact melt breccias of
eroded and/or buried structures and/or structures the Haughton impact structure, Canada. Plane
presently in the marine environment (e.g., the Eltanin polarized light photomicrograph. Field of view is 2
structure in the South Pacific), even though there is mm.
strong evidence for an impact origin.

Fig. 13. Sandstone clast features from the crater-fill
impact melt breccias of the Haughton impact
structure, Canada. Comparison of Plane (a) and cross
(b) polarized light photomicrographs reveals that the
majority of the quartz grains have been transformed
to diaplectic glass. Field of view is 4 mm.
6. THE TERRESTRIAL IMPACT
CRATERING RECORD
It has been 100 years since D. Barringer published
his landmark paper outlining the evidence for the
impact origin of Meteor Crater, Arizona [30]. Since
then, the inventory of known terrestrial impact
structures has grown steadily through time (Fig. 14),
with a current average detection rate of ~3–5 impact
sites per year. Systematic field and remote sensing
campaigns in Scandinavia [31] and Australia [32]
have been particularly successful in the detection of
new impact sites. Currently, there are 174 recognized
terrestrial impact structures (Fig. 15) (i.e., structures
where characteristic shock metamorphic criteria have
been recognized) listed in the Earth Impact Database
[2], hosted and updated by the University of New
Brunswick, Canada.
Notwithstanding the problems surrounding the
recognition of meteorite impact structures (see
section 5), the potential for finding new impact sites
and/or confirming suspected sites remains high, as
exemplified by the recent compilation of Suspected
Earth Impact Sites (SEIS) by D. Rajmon and
published online at http://web.eps.utk.edu/ifsg.htm.
6.1. Spatial distribution of terrestrial impact
structures
Despite the recognition of 174 terrestrial impact
sites, the record is notably incomplete. There are still
few impact sites in South America, Central Africa
and large parts of Asia. Important questions remain
as to whether this is due to the regional geology of
these regions (e.g., lack of ancient, stable cratons), or
if the scarcity of impact sites is due to a lack of
detailed field and remote sensing studies and/or other
factors, such as vegetation coverage or erosion.
Fig. 14. Variation through time of the number of
confirmed terrestrial impact structures. Note the
increase in detection rate of impact structures in the
1970’s, which is due to the recognition of shock
metamorphic criteria (i.e., [33]).
6.2. Distribution of terrestrial impact structures
with respect to target composition and setting
Figure 15 shows the distribution of impact structures
with respect to the composition of the target rocks.
Over two-thirds (96) of terrestrial craters formed, at
least in part, in sedimentary target rocks. This is
notable given the outstanding questions concerning
the processes and products of impacts into volatile-
rich, porous, layered sedimentary rocks (e.g., see the
discussion in section 2.1 regarding impact melting in
sedimentary target rocks).
The majority of the recognized impact sites also
occur on land, although recent advances have been
made in the recognition of impact events that
occurred in the shallow marine environment. Dypvik
and Jansa [34] recognized 16 marine impact in ~4700 m of water, the other marine impact sites all
structures and bathypelagic ejecta (Eltainin, South occurred in <500 m of water, with most at depths of
Pacific), 6 of which are still currently in the marine <200 m [34].
environment. However, besides Eltanin that occurred

Fig. 15. Distribution of the 174 recognized terrestrial impact structures superimposed on a digital elevation map of the
Earth. The red dots represent structures formed entirely in crystalline target rocks; blue dots represent structures formed
entirely in sedimentary target rocks; and green dots represent mixed crystalline–sedimentary targets. Location of
structures from the Earth Impact Database [2] (see Appendix 1).

6.2. Age distribution of terrestrial impact

structures

There is a clear bias in the ages of terrestrial impact

structures, with over half of the known structures
being <200 Ma. Questions remain as to whether the
cratering record has been falling off smoothly since
the end of the Late Heavy Bombardment, or if there
are periods of enhanced flux. Caution should be
exercised given the incompleteness of the terrestrial
cratering record; however, it is interesting to note the
large number of Ordovician craters (Fig. 16), the
majority of which are in Northern Europe [35],
which also coincides with a proposed rain of
ordinary chondritic meteorites [36]. The age Fig. 16. Frequency plot showing known crater ages
distribution of young (<50 Ma) craters is also (n = 125). Note that only craters with reliable
noticeably asymmetric (Fig. 16). In particular, there radiometric or stratigraphic ages are plotted.
is evidence for an increased flux during the Late
Eocene (Fig. 16), with several well-dated large 7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
impact craters and evidence for enhanced flux of
interplanetary dust. Recent re-dating of the Haughton This paper is based, in part, on Chapter 1 of the
structure also raises the possibility of two periods of author’s Ph.D. thesis. John Spray is thanked for
increased flux during the Eocene [37], one around 35 providing and upkeeping the Earth Impact Database.
Ma (Popigai, Russia; Chesapeake, USA) and 39 Ma This paper benefited from discussions with Richard
(Haughton, Wanapitei, Mistastin, Canada). Grieve.
8. REFERENCES
1. French, B.M., The importance of being cratered:
The new role of meteorite impact as a normal
geological process, Meteoritics & Planetary Science
Vol. 39 169-197, 2004.
2. Earth Impact Database,
<http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/>
Accessed: 25th June.2006.
3. Gault, D.E., Quaide, W.L., Oberbeck, V.R.,
Impact cratering mechanics and structures, in: B.M.
French, N.M. Short, (Eds), Shock Metamorphism of
Natural Materials, Mono Book Corp., Baltimore,
1968, pp. 87-99.
4. Kieffer, S.W., Simonds, C.H., The role of volatiles
and lithology in the impact cratering process,
Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics Vol. 18
143-181, 1980.
5. Osinski, G.R., Hypervelocity impacts into
sedimentary targets: Processes and products, PhD
Thesis, University of New Brunswick, 2004.
6. Melosh, H.J., Impact Cratering: A Geologic
Process, Oxford University Press, New York, 1989.
7. Ahrens, T.J., O'Keefe, J.D., Shock melting and
vaporization of Lunar rocks and minerals, Moon Vol.
4 214-249, 1972.
8. Grieve, R.A.F., Dence, M.R., Robertson, P.B.,
Cratering processes: As interpreted from the
occurrence of impact melts, in: D.J. Roddy, R.O.
Pepin, R.B. Merrill, (Eds), Impact and Explosion
Cratering, Pergamon Press, New York, 1977, pp.
791-814.
9. Graup, G., Carbonate-silicate liquid immiscibility
upon impact melting: Ries Crater, Germany,
Meteoritics & Planetary Science Vol. 34 425-438,
1999.
10. Jones, A.P., Claeys, P., Heuschkel, S., Impact
melting of carbonates from the Chicxulub Crater, in:
I. Gilmour, C. Koeberl, (Eds), Impacts and the Early
Earth, Lecture Notes in Earth Sciences 91, Springer-
Verlag, Berlin, 2000, pp. 343-361.
11. Osinski, G.R., Spray, J.G., Impact-generated
carbonate melts: Evidence from the Haughton
Structure, Canada, Earth and Planetary Science
Letters Vol. 194 17-29, 2001.
12. Osinski, G.R., Spray, J.G., Lee, P., Impactites of
the Haughton impact structure, Devon Island,
Canadian High Arctic, Meteoritics & Planetary
Science Vol. 40 1789–1812, 2005.
13. Dence, M.R., Shock zoning at Canadian Craters:
Petrography and structural implications, in: B.M.
French, N.M. Short, (Eds), Shock Metamorphism of
Natural Materials, Mono Book Corp., Baltimore,
1968, pp. 169-184.
14. Grieve, R.A.F., Cintala, M.J., A method for
estimating the initial impact conditions of terrestrial
cratering events, exemplified by its application to
Brent crater, Ontario, Proceedings of the Lunar and
Planetary Science Conference Vol. 12B 1607-1621,
1981.
15. Stöffler, D., Gault, D.E., Wedekind, J.,
Polkowski, G., Experimental hypervelocity impact
into quartz sand: Distribution and shock
metamorphism of ejecta, Journal of Geophysical
Research Vol. 80 4062-4077, 1975.
16. French, B.M., Traces of Catastrophe. Handbook
of Shock-Metamorphic Effects in Terrestrial
Meteorite Impact Structures, Lunar and Planetary
Institute, Houston, 1998.
17. Grieve, R.A.F., Terrestrial impact structures,
Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Science Vol.
15 245-270, 1987.
18. Melosh, H.J., Ivanov, B.A., Impact crater
collapse, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary
Science Vol. 27 385-415, 1999.
19. Dence, M.R., The extraterrestrial origin of
Canadian craters, Annals of the New York Academy
of Science Vol. 123 941-969, 1965.
20. Kenkmann, T., Ivanov, B.A., Stöffler, D.,
Identification of ancient impact structures: Low-
angle faults and related geological features of crater
basements, in: I. Gilmour, C. Koeberl, (Eds), Impacts
and the Early Earth, Lecture Notes in Earth Sciences
91, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2000, pp. 279-309.
21. Newsom, H.E., Hydrothermal alteration of
impact melt sheets with implications for Mars, Icarus
Vol. 44 207-216, 1980.
22. Osinski, G.R., Lee, P., Parnell, J., Spray, J.G.,
Baron, M., A case study of impact-induced
hydrothermal activity: The Haughton impact
structure, Devon Island, Canadian High Arctic,
Meteoritics & Planetary Science Vol. 40 1859-1878,
2005.
23. Naumov, M.V., Principal features of impact-
generated hydrothermal circulation systems:
mineralogical and geochemical evidence, Geofluids
Vol. 5 165-184, 2005.
24. Turtle, E.P., Pierazzo, E., Collins, G.S., Osinski,
G.R., Melosh, H.J., Morgan, J.V., Reimold, W.U.,
Impact structures: What does crater diameter mean?
in: T. Kenkmann, F. Hörz, A. Deutsch, (Eds), Large
meteorite impacts III: Geological Society of America
Special Paper 384, Geological Society of America,
Boulder, 2005, pp. 1-24.
25. Dence, M.R., The nature and significance of
terrestrial impact structures, International Geological
Congress Proceedings Vol. 24th 77-89, 1972.
26. Milton, D.J., Macdonald, F.A., Goat Paddock,
Western Australia: an impact crater near the
simplecomplex transition, Australian Journal of
Earth Sciences Vol. 52 689-697, 2005.
27. Stewart, S.A., Allen, P.J., A 20-km-diameter
multi-ringed impact structure in the North Sea,
Nature Vol. 418 520-523, 2002.
28. Underhill, J.R., Earth science An alternative
origin for the "Silverpit crater", Nature Vol. 428 doi:
10.1038/nature02476, 2004.
29. Stewart, S.A., How will we recognize buried
impact craters in terrestrial sedimentary basins?
Geology Vol. 31 929-932, 2003.
30. Barringer, D.M., Proc. Acad. Natl. Sci. Philos.
Vol. 66 861-886, 1905.
31. Puura, V., Plado, J., Settings of meteorite impact
structures in the Svecofennia crustal domain, in: C.
Koeberl, H. Henkel, (Eds), Impact Tectonics, Impact
Studies Series, Volume 6, Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
2005, pp. 211-245.
32. Haines, P.W., Impact cratering and distal ejecta:
the Australian record, Australian Journal of Earth
Sciences Vol. 52 481-507, 2005.
33. French, B.M., Short, N.M., Shock Metamorphism
of Natural Materials, Mono Book Corp., Baltimore,
1968.
34. Dypvik, H., Jansa, L.F., Sedimentary signatures
and processes during marine bolide impacts: a
review, Sedimentary Geology Vol. 161 309-337,
2003.
35. Lindström, M., Puura, V., Floden, T., Bruun, A.,
Ordovician impacts at sea in Baltoscandia,
International Conference on Large Meteorite
Impacts and Planetary Evolution, Lunar and Plantary
Institute, 1992, p. 47.
36. Schmitz, B., Tassinari, M., Peucker-Ehrenbrink,
B., A rain of ordinary chondritic meteorites in the
early Ordovician, Earth and Planetary Science
Letters Vol. 194 1-15, 2001.
37. Sherlock, S.C., Kelley, S.P., Parnell, J., Green,
P., Lee, P., Osinski, G.R., Cockell, C.S., Re-
evaluating the age of Haughton impact event,
Meteoritics & Planetary Science Vol. 40 1777-1787,
2005.

Appendix 1. List of confirmed terrestrial impact structures with their important attributes (data from the Earth Impact
Database, 2006) and a summary of the target stratigraphy (this study).

Crater name Location Latitude Longitude Age (Ma) Diameter (km) Target rock1
Acraman Australia S 32° 1' E 135° 27' ~590 90 C
Ames U.S.A. N 36° 15' W 98° 12' 470 ± 30 16 M
Amelia Creek Australia S 20° 55' E 134 ° 50' 1640– 600 ~20 M
Amguid Algeria N 26° 5' E 4° 23' < 0.1 0.45 S
Aorounga Chad N 19° 6' E 19° 15' < 345 12.6 S
Aouelloul Mauritania N 20° 15' W 12° 41' 3.0 ± 0.3 0.39 S
Araguainha Brazil S 16° 47' W 52° 59' 244.40 ± 3.25 40 M
Arkenu 1 Libya N 22° 4' E 23° 45' < 140 6.8 S
Arkenu 2 Libya N 22° 4' E 23° 45' < 140 10 S
Avak U.S.A. N 71° 15' W 156° 38' 3-95 12 S
B.P. Structure Libya N 25° 19' E 24° 20' < 120 2 S
Barringer U.S.A. N 35° 2' W 111° 1' 0.049 ± 0.003 1.186 S
Beaverhead U.S.A. N 44° 36' W 113° 0' ~ 600 60 M
Beyenchime- Russia N 71° 0' E 121° 40' 40 ± 20 8 S
Salaatin
Bigach Kazakhstan N 48° 34' E 82° 1' 5±3 8 M
Boltysh Ukraine N 48° 45' E 32° 10' 65.17 ± 0.64 24 C
Bosumtwi Ghana N 6° 30' W 1° 25' 1.07 10.5 C-Ms
Boxhole Australia S 22° 37' E 135° 12' 0.0540 ± 0.0015 0.17 C
Brent Canada N 46° 5' W 78° 29' 396 ± 20 3.8 C
Calvin USA N 41° 50' W 85° 57' 450 ± 10 8.5 S
Campo Del Cielo Argentina S 27° 38' W 61° 42' < 0.004 0.05 M
Carswell Canada N 58° 27' W 109° 30' 115 ± 10 39 M
Charlevoix Canada N 47° 32' W 70° 18' 342 ± 15 54 M
Chesapeake Bay U.S.A. N 37° 17' W 76° 1' 35.5 ± 0.3 90 M
Chicxulub Mexico N 21° 20' W 89° 30' 64.98 ± 0.05 170 M
Chiyli Kazakhstan N 49° 10' E 57° 51' 46 ± 7 5.5 S
Chukcha Russia N 75° 42' E 97° 48' < 70 6 M
Clearwater East Canada N 56° 5' W 74° 7' 290 ± 20 26 M
Clearwater West Canada N 56° 13' W 74° 30' 290 ± 20 36 M
Cloud Creek U.S.A. N 43° 7' W 106° 45' 190 ± 30 Ma 7 S
Connolly Basin Australia S 23° 32' E 124° 45' < 60 9 S
Crater name Location Latitude Longitude Age (Ma) Diameter (km) Target rock1
Couture Canada N 60° 8' W 75° 20' 430 ± 25 8 C
Crawford Australia S 34° 43' E 139° 2' > 35 8.5 C-Ms
Crooked Creek U.S.A. N 37° 50' W 91° 23' 320 ± 80 7 S
Dalgaranga Australia S 27° 38' E 117° 17' ~ 0.27 0.024 C
Decaturville U.S.A. N 37° 54' W 92° 43' < 300 6 M
Deep Bay Canada N 56° 24' W 102° 59' 99 ± 4 13 C
Dellen Sweden N 61° 48' E 16° 48' 89.0 ± 2.7 19 C
Des Plaines U.S.A. N 42° 3' W 87° 52' < 280 8 S
Dobele Latvia N 56° 35' E 23° 15' 290 ± 35 4.5 S
Eagle Butte Canada N 49° 42' W 110° 30' < 65 10 S
Elbow Canada N 50° 59' W 106° 43' 395 ± 25 8 S
El'gygytgyn Russia N 67° 30' E 172° 5' 3.5 ± 0.5 18 C
Flaxman Australia S 34° 37' E 139° 4' > 35 10 C-Ms
Flynn Creek U.S.A. N 36° 17' W 85° 40' 360 ± 20 3.8 S
Foelsche Australia S 16° 40' E 136° 47' > 545 6 M
Gardnos Norway N 60° 39' E 9° 0' 500 ± 10 5 C
Glasford U.S.A. N 40° 36' W 89° 47' < 430 4 S
Glikson Australia S 23° 59' E 121° 34' < 508 ~19 M
Glover Bluff U.S.A. N 43° 58' W 89° 32' < 500 8 S
Goat Paddock Australia S 18° 20' E 126° 40' < 50 5.1 S
Gosses Bluff Australia S 23° 49' E 132° 19' 142.5 ± 0.8 22 S
Gow Canada N 56° 27' W 104° 29' < 250 5 C
Goyder Australia S 13° 9' E 135° 2' < 1400 3 S
Granby Sweden N 58° 25' E 14° 56' ~ 470 3 M
Gusev Russia N 48° 26' E 40° 32' 49.0 ± 0.2 3 S
Gweni-Fada Africa N 17° 25' E 21° 45' < 345 14 S
Haughton Canada N 75° 22' W 89° 41' 39 ± 2 23 S
Haviland U.S.A. N 37° 35' W 99° 10' < 0.001 0.015 S
Henbury Australia S 24° 34' E 133° 8' .0042 ± 0.0019 0.157 S
Holleford Canada N 44° 28' W 76° 38' 550 ± 100 2.35 C
Ile Rouleau Canada N 50° 41' W 73° 53' < 300 4 S
Ilumetsä Estonia N 57° 58' E 27° 25' > 0.002 0.08 S
Ilyinets Ukraine N 49° 7' E 29° 6' 378 ± 5 8.5 M
Iso-Naakkima Finland N 62° 11' E 27° 9' > 1000 3 S
Jänisjärvi Russia N 61° 58' E 30° 55' 700 ± 5 14 C-Ms
Kaalijärv Estonia N 58° 24' E 22° 40' 0.004 ± 0.001 0.11 S
Kalkkop South Africa S 32° 43' E 24° 34' < 1.8 0.64 S
Kaluga Russia N 54° 30' E 36° 12' 380 ± 5 15 M
Kamensk Russia N 48° 21' E 40° 30' 49.0 ± 0.2 25 S
Kara Russia N 69° 6' E 64° 9' 70.3 ± 2.2 65 M
Kara-Kul Tajikistan N 39° 1' E 73° 27' <5 52 C
Kärdla Estonia N 59° 1' E 22° 46' ~ 455 4 M
Karikkoselkä Finland N 62° 13' E 25° 15' < 1.88 1.5 C
Karla Russia N 54° 55' E 48° 2' 5±1 10 S
Kelly West Australia S 19° 56' E 133° 57' > 550 10 C-Ms
Kentland U.S.A. N 40° 45' W 87° 24' < 97 13 S
Keurusselkä Finland N 62° 8' E 24° 36' <1800 30 C
Kgagodi Botswana S 22° 29' E 27° 35' < 180 3.5 C
Kursk Russia N 51° 42' E 36° 0' 250 ± 80 6 M
La Moinerie Canada N 57° 26' W 66° 37' 400 ± 50 8 C
Lappajärvi Finland N 63° 12' E 23° 42' 73.3 ± 5.3 23 M
Lawn Hill Australia S 18° 40' E 138° 39' > 515 18 M
Liverpool Australia S 12° 24' E 134° 3' 150 ± 70 1.6 S
Lockne Sweden N 63° 0' E 14° 49' 455 7.5 M
Logancha Russia N 65° 31' E 95° 56' 40 ± 20 20 M
Logoisk Belarus N 54° 12' E 27° 48' 42.3 ± 1.1 15 M
Crater name Location Latitude Longitude Age (Ma) Diameter (km) Target rock1
Lonar India N 19° 58' E 76° 31' 0.052 ± 0.006 1.83 C
Lumparn Finland N 60° 9' E 20° 6' ~ 1000 9 M
Macha Russia N 60° 6' E 117° 35' < 0.007 0.3 S
Manicouagan Canada N 51° 23' W 68° 42' 214 ± 1 100 M
Manson Iowa, U.S.A. N 42° 35' W 94° 33' 73.8 ± 0.3 35 M
Maple Creek Canada N 49° 48' W 109° 6' < 75 6 S
Marquez U.S.A. N 31° 17' W 96° 18' 58 ± 2 12.7 S
Middlesboro U.S.A. N 36° 37' W 83° 44' < 300 6 S
Mien Sweden N 56° 25' E 14° 52' 121.0 ± 2.3 9 C
Mishina Gora Russia N 58° 43' E 28° 3' 300 ± 50 4 M
Mistastin Canada N 55° 53' W 63° 18' 36.4 ± 4 28 C
Mizarai Lithuania N 54° 1' E 23° 54' 500 ± 20 5 C
Mjølnir Norway N 73° 48' E 29° 40' 142.0 ± 2.6 40 S
Montagnais Canada N 42° 53' W 64° 13' 50.50 ± 0.76 45 S
Monturaqui Chile S 23° 56' W 68° 17' <1 0.46 C
Morasko Poland N 52° 29' E 16° 54' < 0.01 0.1 S
Morokweng South Africa S 26° 28' E 23° 32' 145.0 ± 0.8 70 C
Mount Toondina South S 27° 57' E 135° 22' < 110 4 S
Australia
Neugrund Estonia N 59° 20' E 23° 40' ~ 470 8 S
New Quebec Canada N 61° 17' W 73° 40' 1.4 ± 0.1 3.44 C
Newporte U.S.A. N 48° 58' W 101° 58' < 500 3.2 M
Nicholson Canada N 62° 40' W 102° 41' < 400 12.5 M
Oasis Libya N 24° 35' E 24° 24' < 120 18 S
Obolon Ukraine N 49° 35' E 32° 55' 169 ± 7 20 M
Odessa U.S.A. N 31° 45' W 102° 29' < 0.05 0.168 S
Ouarkziz Algeria N 29° 0' W 7° 33' < 70 3.5 S
Paasselkä Finland N 62° 2' E 29° 5' < 1800 10
Piccaninny Australia S 17° 32' E 128° 25' < 360 7 S
Pilot Canada N 60° 17' W 111° 1' 445 ± 2 6 C
Popigai Russia N 71° 39' E 111° 11' 35.7 ± 0.2 100 M
Presqu'ile Canada N 49° 43' W 74° 48' < 500 24 C
Puchezh-Katunki Russia N 56° 58' E 43° 43' 167 ± 3 80 M
Ragozinka Russia N 58° 44' E 61° 48' 46 ± 3 9 M
Red Wing U.S.A. N 47° 36' W 103° 33' 200 ± 25 9 S
Riachao Ring Brazil S 7° 43' W 46° 39' < 200 4.5 S
Ries Germany N 48° 53' E 10° 37' 15.1 ± 0.1 24 M
Rio Cuarto Argentina S 32° 52' W 64° 14' < 0.1 1 by 4.5 M
Rochechouart France N 45° 50' E 0° 56' 214 ± 8 23 C
Rock Elm U.S.A. N 44° 43' W 92° 14' < 505 6 S
Roter Kamm Namibia S 27° 46' E 16° 18' 3.7 ± 0.3 2.5 C
Rotmistrovka Ukraine N 49° 0' E 32° 0' 120 ± 10 2.7 C
Sääksjärvi Finland N 61° 24' E 22° 24' ~ 560 6 M
Saarijärvi Finland N 65° 17' E 28° 23' > 600 1.5 C
Saint Martin Canada N 51° 47' W 98° 32' 220 ± 32 40 M
Serpent Mound Ohio, U.S.A. N 39° 2' W 83° 24' < 320 8 S
Serra da Cangalha Brazil S 8° 5' W 46° 52' < 300 12 S
Shoemaker Australia S 25° 52' E 120° 53' 1630 ± 5 30 M
(formerly Teague
Ring)
Shunak Kazakhstan N 47° 12' E 72° 42' 45 ± 10 2.8 C
Sierra Madera U.S.A. N 30° 36' W 102° 55' < 100 13 S
Sikhote Alin Russia N 46° 7' E 134° 40' 0.000055 0.027 C
Siljan Sweden N 61° 2' E 14° 52' 361.0 ± 1.1 52 M
Slate Islands Canada N 48° 40' W 87° 0' ~ 450 30 C
Sobolev Russia N 46° 18' E 137° 52' < 0.001 0.053 M
Crater name Location Latitude Longitude Age (Ma) Diameter (km) Target rock1
Söderfjärden Finland N 63° 2' E 21° 35' ~ 600 5.5 C
Spider Australia S 16° 44' E 126° 5' > 570 13 S
Steen River Canada N 59° 30' W 117° 38' 91± 7 25 M
Steinheim Germany N 48° 41' E 10° 4' 15 ± 1 3.8 S
Strangways Australia S 15° 12' E 133° 35' 646 ± 42 25 M
Suavjärvi Russia N 63° 7' E 33° 23' ~ 2400 16 C-Ms
Sudbury Canada N 46° 36' W 81° 11' 1850 ± 3 250 C
Suvasvesi N Finland N 62° 42' E 28° 10' < 1000 4 C
Tabun-Khara-Obo Mongolia N 44° 6' E 109° 36' 150 ± 20 1.3 C
Talemzane Algeria N 33° 19' E 4° 2' <3 1.75 S
Tenoumer Mauritania N 22° 55' W 10° 24' 0.0214 ± 0.0097 1.9 M
Ternovka Ukraine N 48° 08' E 33° 31' 280 ± 10 11 C
Tin Bider Algeria N 27° 36' E 5° 7' < 70 6 S
Tookoonooka Australia S 27° 7' E 142° 50' 128 ± 5 55 M
Tswaing South Africa S 25° 24' E 28° 5' 0.220 ± 0.052 1.13 C
(formerly Pretoria
Saltpan)
Tvären Sweden N 58° 46' E 17° 25' ~ 455 2 M
Upheaval Dome U.S.A. N 38° 26' W 109° 54' < 170 10 S
Vargeao Dome Brazil S 26° 50' W 52° 7' < 70 12 M
Veevers Australia S 22° 58' E 125° 22' <1 0.08 S
Vepriai Lithuania N 55° 5' E 24° 35' > 160 ± 10 8 S
Viewfield Canada N 49° 35' W 103° 4' 190 ± 20 2.5 S
Vista Alegre Brazil S 25° 57' W 52° 41' < 65 9.5
Vredefort South Africa S 27° 0' E 27° 30' 2023 ± 4 300 M
Wabar Saudi Arabia N 21° 30' E 50° 28' 0.00014 0.116 S
Wanapitei Canada N 46° 45' W 80° 45' 37.2 ± 1.2 7.5 C
Wells Creek U.S.A. N 36° 23' W 87° 40' 200 ± 100 12 S
West Hawk Canada N 49° 46' W 95° 11' 351± 20 2.44 C
Wetumpka U.S.A. N 32° 31' W 86° 10' 81.0 ± 1.5 6.5 M
Wolfe Creek Australia S 19° 10' E 127° 48' < 0.3 0.875 S
Woodleigh Australia S 26° 3' E 114° 39' 364 ± 8 40 M
Yarrabubba Australia S 27° 10' E 118° 50' ~ 2000 30 C
Zapadnaya Ukraine N 49° 44' E 29° 0' 165 ± 5 3.2 C
Zelenv Gai Ukraine N 48° 4' E 32° 45' 80 ± 20 2.5 C
Zhamanshin Kazakhstan N 48° 24' E 60° 58' 0.9 ± 0.1 14 M
1
Abbreviations: C = crystalline target; C-Ms = metasedimentary target; M = mixed target (i.e., sedimentary strata
overlying crystalline basement); S = sedimentary target (i.e., no crystalline rocks affected by the impact event);